IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v52y2018i6d10.1007_s11135-018-0712-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DNA test to assess criminal responsibility: a Bayesian approach

Author

Listed:
  • Massimiliano Giacalone

    (University of Naples ‘Federico II’)

  • Maria Rosaria Giannuzzi

    (Italian Ministry of Interior)

  • Demetrio Panarello

    (Parthenope University of Naples)

Abstract

Judicial statistics is generally referred to as the detection of data on crimes and trial outcomes, with subsequent analysis of the data thus detected. Statistics applied to the evaluation of evidence is increasingly being recognized as an important part of the modern criminal justice system. This paper is about the use of DNA test for identification and judicial purposes—the greatest revolution in criminal investigation—, also in reference to a concrete case of statistics applied to forensic genetics. Science and law walk together in the process of determining the procedural truth, from the preliminary investigation phase until the final judgement. Statistical evidence is not always considered reliable in the criminal procedure, as it is often based on a subjective probability concept. On the other hand, a rational evidence that can claim criminal liability “beyond any reasonable doubt” is necessary. In this regard, in this paper we analyze how DNA test can be considered a scientific, reliable and valid evidence when contextualized and evaluated together with the other elements found during the criminal procedure. The scientificity of identifying the individual by typing the DNA profile detected on the crime scene is thus validated, supported by the statistical calculation of the rarity of the probability that the typed genetic profile could be casually attributed to another individual in the world population.

Suggested Citation

  • Massimiliano Giacalone & Maria Rosaria Giannuzzi & Demetrio Panarello, 2018. "DNA test to assess criminal responsibility: a Bayesian approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 2837-2853, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:52:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-018-0712-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-018-0712-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-018-0712-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-018-0712-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Horne & Heiko Rauhut, 2013. "Using laboratory experiments to study law and crime," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1639-1655, April.
    2. Christine Horne & Heiko Rauhut, "undated". "Using Laboratory Experiments to Study Law and Crime," Working Papers CCSS-10-010, ETH Zurich, Chair of Systems Design.
    3. Kristoffel Grechenig & Andreas Nicklisch & Christian Thöni, 2010. "Punishment despite Reasonable Doubt – A Public Goods Experiment with Uncertainty over Contributions," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2010_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Engel, 2016. "Experimental Criminal Law. A Survey of Contributions from Law, Economics and Criminology," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2016_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Heiko Rauhut, 2015. "Stronger inspection incentives, less crime? Further experimental evidence on inspection games," Rationality and Society, , vol. 27(4), pages 414-454, November.
    3. Christian Thöni, 2014. "Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 529-545, April.
    4. De Geest, Lawrence R. & Kingsley, David C., 2021. "Norm enforcement with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 403-430.
    5. Khadjavi, Menusch & Lange, Andreas & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "The Social Value of Transparency and Accountability: Experimental Evidence from Asymmetric Public Good Games," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100512, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.
    7. Nicklisch, Andreas & Grechenig, Kristoffel & Thöni, Christian, 2016. "Information-sensitive Leviathans," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-13.
    8. Khadjavi, Menusch & Lange, Andreas & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "The Social Value of Transparency and Accountabilityː Experimental Evidence from Asymmetric Public Goods Games," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 12, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    9. Dirk Engelmann & Nikos Nikiforakis, 2015. "In the long-run we are all dead: on the benefits of peer punishment in rich environments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(3), pages 561-577, October.
    10. Martin Brown & Jan Schmitz & Christian Zehnder, 2023. "Moral Constraints, Social Norm Enforcement and Strategic Default in Weak and Strong Economic Conditions," Working Papers 23.03, Swiss National Bank, Study Center Gerzensee.
    11. Christoph Engel, 2019. "When Does Transparency Backfire? Putting Jeremy Bentham's Theory of General Prevention to the Experimental Test," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 881-908, December.
    12. Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311-338.
    13. Erte Xiao & Howard Kunreuther, 2016. "Punishment and Cooperation in Stochastic Social Dilemmas," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(4), pages 670-693, June.
    14. DeAngelo, Gregory & Gee, Laura Katherine, 2018. "Peers or Police? Detection and Sanctions in the Provision of Public Goods," IZA Discussion Papers 11540, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Christoph Engel & Heike Hennig‐Schmidt & Bernd Irlenbusch & Sebastian Kube, 2015. "On Probation: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 252-288, June.
    16. Deffains, Bruno & Espinosa, Romain & Fluet, Claude, 2019. "Laws and norms: Experimental evidence with liability rules," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Bucciol, Alessandro & Montinari, Natalia & Piovesan, Marco, 2014. "It Wasn't Me! Visibility and Free Riding in Waste Sorting," Working Papers 2014:17, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. Jeffrey Carpenter & Andrea Robbett & Prottoy A. Akbar, 2018. "Profit Sharing and Peer Reporting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4261-4276, September.
    19. El-Bialy, Nora & Aranda, Elisa Fraile & Nicklisch, Andreas & Saleh, Lamis & Voigt, Stefan, 2022. "To cooperate or not to cooperate? An analysis of cooperation and peer punishment among Syrian refugees, Germans, and Jordanians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    20. Gabriele Ruiu, 2014. "The Role of Trust in Determining the Propensity to Join Unofficial Strikes," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 8(3), pages 125-148, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:52:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s11135-018-0712-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.